Omaha daily bee., 1887-12-05
THE COMMERCIAL. TRAVELLER.
Items Of Interest to the Men on the
Road.
A Thrilling Expcrience--Making I'm.
provements-DOings OF the w.
G. L. Board -Omaha's Sunday
Guests-Samples.
Decisions on the Drummer.

To the Editor of the Bee VIII you kindly
give the legal status of the drummer tax. If
the tax has been declared unconstitutional
how is it that many localities yet impose it.
Please state where can find the decision de-
claring the tax illegal. DRUMMER.
The supreme court of the United States in
the case Of Robbins VS. the taxing district of
Shelby county, Tenn. decided that the drum
mcr tax was unconstitutional, as the license
imposed was a tax upon interstate commerce
and a violation of the commerce clause of the
federal constitution. (See 120 U. $. 4S0). A
similar case was decided in Nevada recently.
A commercial traveller from California was
arrested in Nevada for soliciting purchases
without having first obtained a license as re-
quired by the statute, which statute, also,
obliged all resident merchants to take out Ii
censes. He did not appeal to the supreme
court of the state after having been de-
trct rSt'' court on '' from "np' the " conviction con
by the justice of the peace: he was charged
with committing u misdemeanor but ap-
piled to the supreme court of Nevada upon
writ of habeas corpus to be discharged from
Imprisonment on the ground that, as the stat
ute was unconstitutional the district court
had no jurisdiction To determine the validity
of the statute In this case-ex parte Rosen-
blatt-the court supported this contention
and discharged the prisoner from custody.
The Judge who granted the writ of habeas
corpus, in rendering his opinion, said: We
must accept this decision of the United States
supreme court in the Tennessee case as es-
tablshng the unconstitutionality of the stat
ute under which the petitioner was convicted
The statute of Tennessee and that of this
state (Ncvada) do not materially differ
neither imposes a tax upon citizens of other
states which does not equally apply to its own
citizens nor is there any discrimination in
either statute against other states OF their
| products. 1t is urged here, however, that
| the district court had jurisdiction to deter
mine the constitutionalty of the statute, and
and that its Judgment cannot be reviewed
| upon a writ of habeas corpus. But the dis
| trict court did not have jurisdiction, because
the state could not lawfully impose the
| license tax. There was, in legal contem-
| platiOn, no law creating the offense OF
| which the petitioner was convicted An un-
| constitutional law, says the supreme court of
| S., 80, is void, and is no law. An offensc
| created by it is no crime. A conviction un
| der it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal
| and void, and can not be legal cause for i'm
| prisonmcnt. 1t is true, if no writ of error
lies, the Judgment may be final in the sense
| that there may be no means of reversing it
but personal liberty is of so great moment ir
the eye of the law that the judgment of an in
| ferIor court affecting it is not deemed so con
elusive but that the question of the courts
| authority to try and imprison the party may
| be reviewed on habeas corpus by superior
court or Judge having authority to award tn,
| WRIT
Just why certain authorities insist on en-
forcing law which has SO plainly beer
branded as unconstitutional is something
they alone can explain. 1t is probable tha
those who insist upon its enforcement hop
to make litigation so expensive that it will b.
far cheaper to pay the tax than stand the cX
pehses of lengthy litigation.